UVX Stealth Destroyer/Carrier?

I think that in high threat littoral environments – all the proposal does is indicate the short commings of a helicopter to stand on patrol (cost effectively in terms of logictics tail and man hours), putting a slow man air vehcile in harms way….

Helicopters are great searching in the wide ocean for submarines, or being under the fighter/missile umberella to carry stuff from ship to ship or ship to shore.

The operational requirements beg the questions – do we need speed, do we need persistance, do we need to intervine and do we have crew to some of these tasks?? if the asnwer is yes – then that must change things.

Reminds me of a modern update of the original DHK Air-Capable Spruance from 1969.

Use something like the Firescout or a militarized Bell/Agusta BA609 Tiltrotor and you’ve got a lot of operational flexibility.

The concept is still viable, it only requires the operational need and the budget funding.

Something similar was suggested in the 2005 USN Alternative Force Study.

I wouldn’t discount this design so quickly. It sounds like its a modular multi-purpose design that can be changed for specific missions. Kind of reminds me of a cross between the LCS and Danish Absalon with the capability to carry helicopters, UAVs and UCAVs.

—–JT—–

I think this is just a BAE halo exercise in possibilities rather than a serious proposal, it looks impressive initially but I’m with those who see it as offering little that can’t be achieved more effectively with a more conventional design. Personally I see the BMT F5 Frigate concept as a much more interesting study in possibilities for the future.

+1 on that. It is a shame the RN does not have a massive budget as the F5 as follow on DDG after the T45 would be an awesome vessel.

For me the most interesting thing about the UVX is the RCS reduction measures going on. The superstructure looks very DDG1000ish.

I think this is just a BAE halo exercise in possibilities rather than a serious proposal, it looks impressive initially but I’m with those who see it as offering little that can’t be achieved more effectively with a more conventional design. Personally I see the BMT F5 Frigate concept as a much more interesting study in possibilities for the future.

“the old harrier destroyer” concept??…I don’t think BAE is suggesting that this is a replacement for a CV, or the platform from which a major offensive is to be conducted. It role is littoral – and is more about persistant patrol and control.

Full set of missiles (could include land-SSMs) can be provided, two EH101 provides felxibility around insertion missions and patrol and it is not necessarily intened that 2 helicopters be embarked. As for UCAV’s it is likely that efficient patrol UAV’s can be used, and UCAV’s – in a littoral control theatre is unlikely to require much more than enabling 24 missions to be flown. 4 UCAV’s X 6 missions.

This has no relationship to ‘cold war’ ideas of destroyer sized ships (see book ‘the new capital ship’) having large VSTOL fighters embarked, with only stores and fuel enough for limited missions. BAE approach is much more about being time critical and bringing precison weapons to bear on a particular target if need be, while patroling and controlling the littoral environment.

Looks like a 2008 version of the old ‘Harrier destroyer’ concept. It has all the same problems that made the earlier concept a non-starter unfortunately. Too few aircraft in the airgroup for meaningful operations being the most important of those..

Realistically all this vessel would be capable of is a few dozen UCAV strike ops until the embarked stores ran low….same can be achieved with a conventional design with a reasonable sized VLS farm and TACTOM!.

I think I would have to agree…….If, you wanted to operate Conventional UCAV Aircraft. Why not go with a smaller Carrier? (i.e. 16DDH for example) If, not just operate Helo-Type UAV’s from a stern landing pad like the USN forthcoming DDX or any Cruiser/Destroyer Type?

Looks like a 2008 version of the old ‘Harrier destroyer’ concept. It has all the same problems that made the earlier concept a non-starter unfortunately. Too few aircraft in the airgroup for meaningful operations being the most important of those..

Realistically all this vessel would be capable of is a few dozen UCAV strike ops until the embarked stores ran low….same can be achieved with a conventional design with a reasonable sized VLS farm and TACTOM!.